July 31, 2014, 04:12:28 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stu_bert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
only 3, not fair  ;D ;D

1. Orbit the earth
2. Submersilble like James Cameron to the ocean depths, but not as claustrophobically small  :P
3. One Way Trip to Mars ? Ok, Amazon Rain Forest

If this list were longer.... I'd add the poles, trip over Alaska by plane (remote regions), Orcas in Alaska, Great White in South Africa, Northern Lights (anywhere!), Brazil, Spitsbergen (polar bears), S. Argentina, Bolivian Salt Flats, Yellowstone, Yosemite and Tetons in Winter, Galapagos, Peru, Japan in winter, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, India (tigers), Bhutan, Tibet, Lapland, Ice Hotel, Husky Driving to remote Scandanavia, Ngorogoro crater, Borneo, New Zealand (N&S Islands), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Great Barrier Reef, Myanmar, Iceland (summer & winter), Lotofen Islands (winter), Northern Norway (winter), Norwegian Fjords, Australian outback, Petra/Jordan, Holy Land/Israel, Poland, Moscow/Russia, Lithuania, Siberia, temples in Iran/Iraq, Eastern Turkey, Southern Italy, Dolomites, Tallin/Estonia, Budapest, Silk Road, East Java, Malaysia, S.Ireland, Hebrides, Costa Rica, Kgalagadi Park S.Africa, Botswana (okavanga delta), Egypt (pyramids), Rwanda (Gorillas), Chimps in Tanzania, Sardine Run in S. Africa, Venice, Vienna, St Petersburg, Mongolia, Iguazu Falls, Madagascar, South Korea, Lisbon, Sri Lanka.


2
Canon General / Re: Carry on restrictions on South African Airways
« on: July 28, 2014, 01:32:23 PM »
Sir, not you!  As I followed your questions and reasoning you made it clear you wonted to follow the airlines regs.

The ones with all the other suggestions and ideas!  As far as I can see nobody questioned the consequences for any other passenger due to their suggestions and ideas. 

I still claim, if you have to much carryon, stow your stuff under the seat in front of you.  I seriously want to be able to stow my single carryon in the overhead compartment.
I would be happy to pay a sensible excess for bringing on my camera equipment as hand luggage but the reality is that the airlines do not offer any viable solution. Putting expensive kit into the hold is not a solution as discussed. Where possible I fly BA, AA and those airlines who have a sensible hand luggage policy (1 bag, if you can lift it and it meets the size limits, we're fine). Alas those airlines don't fly everywhere so I use alternatives.

In terms of overhead locker use - I've clearly flown on different flights to you where people shove suitcases in the overhead lockers along with coats, duty free goods etc. my laptop sits with me during flights and I put my camera bag in the overhead. It complies with size regulation. I would happily put it under the seat except the standard seat dimensions cannot accommodate such hand luggage...

3
Canon General / Re: Carry on restrictions on South African Airways
« on: July 27, 2014, 05:35:17 PM »
One practical suggestion is to wear a vest with several large (and empty) pockets. If your bag is overweight, slip a lens or two into the vest. Airlines do not care how much YOU weigh.


I've used the same technique with Air Namibia and SAA, and indeed other airlines, but to be honest I've never needed them, even with a LowePro Photo Trekker. If you're comfortable, even wearing the slr till you get on the plane and then placing it back in the bag... I've put batteries in pockets or coats, hand held the coat or indeed used a photographers vest. To date, the only issue I ever had was an internal Zambia flight in a tiny 20 seater plane. The bag would not fit in an overhead nor under the seat, so it went in captains luggage :)

4
When I did a flight over the dunes in Namibia, I shot mostly with the 24-70 but that was based on the landscape. I was lucky to have a second body and had a 70-300 but that's a lot more difficult to get good shots based on speed of flight, jerkiness of ride etc.

For a couple of helicopter flights (Vic falls and rockies in Canada), I used the 16-35 and 70-200 (single body), so I swapped lenses during the flight...

It does depend on your style of photography, but if I could only have 1 lens it out of your list it would be the 24-70.

Few other tips

  • Be sure to use Tv or auto-iso, as you need to have approx. 1/1000th of a second speed to ensure you don't blur the shots (of course this depends on what direction you are shooting in relative to the plane).
  • As mentioned - windows cleanliness and reflection, again of course watching out for the sun as well (glare).
  • Check out the plane before and decide the best seating position - normally at the back or at the front, otherwise you will get the wings in a lot of shots
  • Scout out the location before and see if there are particular areas - maybe even use google maps to give you the birds-eye view for planning if you can influence the pilot.

5
Photography Technique / Re: Getting photos home from overseas
« on: July 26, 2014, 03:45:03 AM »
if you want to avoid your laptop, you could consider a pair of hyperdrives for copying from your memory cards to the sata drives. I've not used the latest generation, but have used them where a laptop is not practical.

I'm not clear however on why you want to get the data home each day if you have 2 copies with you? Are you concerned over theft or something?

And is the use of cloud storage a no-no based on access to wifi during your trip or concerns over security?

6
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 04:52:19 PM »
no news here: "we look forward to the advent of high-resolution model of the EOS".  We are all looking forward to that.  This poor guy works for Canon and he is looking forward to the same thing we are.  I'm looking forward to Christmas too.  The only difference is I know Christmas is coming.....this year.
;D ;D ;D

7
EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2014, 02:32:24 AM »
Welcome.

Re A7R - http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/sony-nex-camera-reviews/sony-a7-and-a7r-review.html

Scroll down to "How do they Perform?"


I believe that only applies to their 11-bit "RAW" encoding. That would be something akin to Canon's sRAW and mRAW, not necessarily in encoding, but in lossyness. Neither are actually RAW files, they encode data in a specific way. In Canon's case, the m/sRAW formats are YCb'Cr' formats, or Luminance + Chrominance Blue-Yellow + Chrominance Red-Green. The Y or Luminance channels is stored full resolution, however the Cb and Cr channels are stored "sparse". In Canon's case, all of the stored values are still 14-bit precision, but they do store lower chrominance data. Canon's images would be superior to Sony's, in both that they store more information in total, as well as with a greater bit depth...however both will suffer from the same limitation: The information is not actually RAW, which severely limits your editing latitude.

Generally speaking, the fact that these formats store lower resolution color information doesn't matter all that much. Because of the way our brains process information, if done carefully, a lower resolution chrominance is "missed" in favor of a higher level of detail. YCbCr formats have been around for a long time, since the dawn of color TV even. The Luminance channel was extracted and sent in full detail, while the blue/yellow and red/green channels were sent separately, in a more highly compressed format. This actually allowed color information to be piggybacked on the same signal that "black and white" TV channels were sent on, making it possible for B&W TVs to pick up the same signal as Color TVs.

If you have paid any attention to Canon's video features, you've already heard of similar video compression techniques. You may have heard of 4:1:1, 4:2:2, or 4:4:4. Those numbers refer to the Y, Cb, and Cr channel encoding. A 4:1:1 encoding has full luminance and 1/4 Cb & Cr channels. A 4:2:2 encoding has full luminance and 1/2 Cb and Cr channels.  As you might expect, a 4:4:4 encoding use the same sampling rate for all three channels, and is effectively "full resolution". A standard RAW image is also technically a 4:4:4 R'G'B' image.


Jrista - did not appreciate that for mRaw/sRaw so thank you. My understanding on Sony is however, that their 11 bit RAW is their standard raw. I'm not sure if you read the whole article, but Tom is talking about deficiencies as a result, and he's comparing it to the D800. There's a further link embedded

http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection

which I believe confirms that they do the same on all their RAW encoding.

Don't get me wrong, I think many people would not notice it or can work around it - Fred Miranda has been positive in his review and he's a canon user - in fact I think there's a whole forum on his site discussing it in detail. To me it just seems somewhat self-defeating - you have a sensor with better DR than your competitors but you then impair the output with your compression scheme which "fails" when you have scene with higher DR.

Maybe I misinterpreted the information...

8
EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 05, 2014, 06:52:15 PM »
Glancing at his gear wish list, it looks like he's more into action than astro. An A7R is 2500 less in the budget (camera + EF adapter). Personally I would love one for portrait and landscape work, but I can not justify the expense. I suspect I'd get more use from that tamron 150-600 and a new tripod.


So, while I'd like an A7r for my landscape photography, it is actually one of the worst possible choices for astrophotography. I do landscapes sometimes, wildlife and birds most of the time, and astrophotography every time there is a clear night.



I was looking at the A7R with adapter for landscapes, but then I read on Thom Hogan's site that Sony uses lossy compression on their RAWs (unless I misread him), and you can't switch it off!

Why would they do that?   :( :(

On that basis, it may have amazing DR but then it surely will just smudge out some of the detail for err, actually I'm not sure for what benefit...


Hmm, I hadn't heard of that. If they do, it's foolish, and you really no longer have a RAW image. I am a bit skeptical of that...it doesn't seem logical, but who knows.

Had a look at that astro link - it's a whole new language there  :) If I understood correctly, then it's a 2000mm lens? And optically is it better than your 600mm lens with a 1.4x and 2.x attached? Just curious as to the benefits. Thanks.


Reflecting light tends to produce superior spots at the sensor plane in comparison to refracting light. Reflecting light can warp star diffraction spots due to coma and astigmatism, but that's about it. Refracting light, on the other hand, suffers from all forms of optical aberrations...which also includes chromatic aberrations, spherical aberration, etc. The RC, or Ritchey-Chretien, telescope design is one of the more superior designs. It's the same design used in all the major earth-bound telescopes...the huge ones, up to 10 meters in size. It tends to produce superior results, although it does suffer from some coma and astigmatism in the corners.

There is a better telescope design than even the RC, called a CDK or Corrected Dall-Kirkham. The CDK uses a mirror and built in corrector to get one of the best spot shapes, center to corner, of any telescope design I've ever seen. PlaneWave makes CDK scopes, but they are pretty pricey. From what I've read and seen, a CDK is about the best telescope design in the world today.

As good as my lens is, and it is very good with a very flat field corner to corner, it is no RC and certainly no CDK. If I throw on teleconverters, that gets me more focal length (which is not necessarily the best thing...a LOT of nebula are even larger than I can fit in my field with the 600mm, let alone a 2000mm scope), but  it also increases the optical aberrations. For galaxies, clusters, and getting close up on parts of nebula, a longer, better scope like the Astro-Tech 10" RC is better. The larger aperture, ten inches vs. six inches, also means I can resolve smaller magnitude stars, galaxies, and other details. Most scopes work with focal reducers, so while it is 2000mm natively, I can use a 0.63x reducer to make it an f/5 1260mm telescope. That is relatively fast with a moderately wide field. For planetary work, I can also throw on a 2x or 3x barlow lens, and get a 400mm f/16 or 6000mm f/24 scope, which is much better for planetary imaging (f-ratio doesn't usually matter for planetary, as you image planets by taking videos with thousands of frames for anywhere from a couple minutes to as long as a half hour...then filter, register, and stack the best frames of the video, which is basically performing a superresolution integration...that eliminates blurring from seeing, and effectively allows you to image well beyond the diffraction limit.)


Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

Re A7R - http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/a-note-about-camera-reviews/sony-nex-camera-reviews/sony-a7-and-a7r-review.html

Scroll down to "How do they Perform?"

9
EOS Bodies / Re: More Sensor Technology Talk [CR1]
« on: May 05, 2014, 06:06:42 AM »
Glancing at his gear wish list, it looks like he's more into action than astro. An A7R is 2500 less in the budget (camera + EF adapter). Personally I would love one for portrait and landscape work, but I can not justify the expense. I suspect I'd get more use from that tamron 150-600 and a new tripod.

So, while I'd like an A7r for my landscape photography, it is actually one of the worst possible choices for astrophotography. I do landscapes sometimes, wildlife and birds most of the time, and astrophotography every time there is a clear night.


I was looking at the A7R with adapter for landscapes, but then I read on Thom Hogan's site that Sony uses lossy compression on their RAWs (unless I misread him), and you can't switch it off!

Why would they do that?   :( :(

On that basis, it may have amazing DR but then it surely will just smudge out some of the detail for err, actually I'm not sure for what benefit...

Had a look at that astro link - it's a whole new language there  :) If I understood correctly, then it's a 2000mm lens? And optically is it better than your 600mm lens with a 1.4x and 2.x attached? Just curious as to the benefits. Thanks.

10
Yesterday we posted an internal service advisory for the Canon EOS-1D X and EOS-1D C. These are advisories that are only known to a select few within Canon and not told to the consumers.

We have a lot of more of these documents that cover various Canon lenses and camera bodies, there’s even more on the EOS-1D X mirrorbox.

The person that sent them to us didn’t have an issue with Canon keeping this stuff internal. However, they were upset that a lot of the issues are known to Canon and they’re still charging customers for the repairs out of warranty. There are a couple of lenses with design flaws and Canon is charging $250-$450 for these repairs out of warranty and not fully disclosing the design flaw to the customer.

We’re not sure whether or not we’ll post the rest of the internal documents we have in our possession. If you think there’s value in us doing so, please sound off in our forum

cr

With the last sentence it sounds like you are blatantly bating people to generate more site traffic and have no intention to post anything. It is also worth noting that since the post, you have not followed up. If you were seeking the possible pro's and con's, then I would have expected you to contribute. You haven't, which again leads me back to the 1st point.

I understand the response from many people who are worried about their investment having a flaw or known issue. Part of me would be similar, especially if I knew the equipment may fail at a decisive moment, even more so when it costs thousands of pounds. The problem, as stated, is that many people would indeed try to pre-empt such a problem and unless the internal documents highlight the % impact, then you cause a storm of requests to Canon for a very small issue.

Frankly, whereas you intentions may have been honourable, this thread comes across as manipulation.

I concur with the conclusion of one of the other posters. Provide the info anonymously to your local authority. Providing it to media I think would just result in further exploitation to increase publicity.

Speak about class action is indeed what would make any website owner be incredibly reticent to publish such information.

Finally, I think what would be helpful is indeed to start a new section about actual faults / repairs by model in this site. People can post their problems, see if others concur it as a fault or corroborate based on their own equipment. That would be a useful outcome IMHO. A thread per equipment with sticky post with stats of fault issues (unsharp glass, back/front focus etc) allows people to see problems, but of course would only be useful if those people who *dont* have the problems also post likewise.

11
Canon General / Re: Travel charger for Canon LP-E4N battery
« on: April 02, 2014, 05:27:52 PM »
I travel on a lot of and have always wondered why Canon did not make a one battery charger (even if only to buy as an accessory). I use more than one battery a day quite frequently, but would be more than happy with a one battery charger if they made one. As it is now, I just travel with the original.

I do agree, and would have purchased one like you if Canon did it as a backup. Any long trip (>1 week) then I always take 2 chargers, so two singles or a single n double would be ideal.

No third party charger is ever going anywhere near my Canon batteries.
Not to challenge, more to understand, but why not? Do you not use 3rd party batteries?

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever opened the brick which Canon supplies? I always got the impression that it's 80% empty inside...

12
Canon General / Re: Travel charger for Canon LP-E4N battery
« on: April 02, 2014, 02:22:51 AM »
i've used an LC-E4 charger from China via ebay which is half the size and works fine for 1Ds batteries, but I've only used occasionally and therefore can't comment on longer term use. Funnily enough, I tend to drag 2 chargers wherever I travel, and the chinese clone is only used when I'm really tight on luggage (but I still take a Canon)

Is the LC-E4N "compatible" with LC-E4 ?

Just search for LC-E4 battery charger if you're interested...

13
PowerShot / Re: Canon EOS Smart 1 Phone
« on: March 31, 2014, 12:58:26 PM »
And not very good photoshop, look at the canon logo on the right hand device, perspective all wrong....  :-[

14
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX Won't Power On
« on: March 18, 2014, 07:08:37 PM »
Rang, I only use Canon batteries-

Student of the light- I have formatted the cards- I format them when I traqnsfer the photos to the computer

Neuro- one more time- They weren't even going to perform the product advisory work UNTIL I approved of being charged for work that was covered under warranty- I had to fight with them to even perform the product advisory work- they simply had set the camera on a shelf and never even began work on the product advisory issue- they should have at least done that work then contacted me IF they felt there was an issue with the warranty concerning the other issue, and asked me how to continue. They did not- they apparently weren't even going to contact me- I was the oen who had to contact them,

I have had a horrible experience with this camera right from Day one practically, and now the stinking thing is dead, making a bad situation worse. I am not a smart person, nor do I explain things well- but I came here to explain to people that they might run into the horrible issues I've run into, NOT to be berated and made to feel stupid by you- but you seem hell bent on doing so apparently- You';ve done this several times with me in previous threads- not sure what your problem is?

In the uk, any canon repairs are covered by 6 month warranty, can't speak for elsewhere. So if you contact them as mentioned and point out the previous repair, the only cost *might* be the shipping cost. You should of course check as not all canon repair centres globally seem to work the same as this forum demonstrates....

15
Perhaps because if you need a whole bunch of cards, then whether you spend 50 bucks or 150 bucks does make a difference  :D.  And there's no guarantee that you will be able to use your cards in future as different standards come out and manufacturers switch to them....

If you indeed like to rattle off the frames, then the fastest you can afford indeed makes sense....

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14